Video: Fred Thompson on Constitutional Marriage Amendment
September 8, 2007
Today in Sioux City Iowa Fred Thompson was asked whether he supports a federal marriage amendment.
His answer was interesting.
What he's basically saying is that he's for an amendment to the constitution but not the current one. He doesn't think the current language will be able to pass Congress so here's his idea:
His amendment would say that one state wouldn't have to recognize a gay marriage in another state AND that judges could not just impose marriage on a state unless the state legislature votes to approve it. I asked him about this after his Sioux City event and you can watch his answer above. The transcription of his comments is below:
Thompson told me that this language works because he's banking on the fact that not one state legislature has passed a law so far approving gay marriage.
In addition, he's able to keep to his federalist principles because technically, it would ultimately be left up to the state. He figures politicians won't risk voting for gay marriage because voters will send them packing if they do.
This is obviously an attempt to thread the needle. His argument will be that just saying you support a federal marriage amendment as currently worded won't pass so let's come up with a common sense alternative. I can already see Mitt Romney's advisors huddled about this plotting strategy on how to go after Thompson on this.
They think he's vulnerable because Romney supports the federal marriage amendment and they think voters won't like Thompson's nuanced approach. :
Read the entire transcript from this topic below:
Well I wouldn't call it a tug-of-war at all. Even in the same family, we have different views to reach a particular goal.
The point is here that I believe that marriage is a between a man and a woman. That's the basis of civilization, and it has been beyond question or discussion for an awful long time in this world. And it's amazing in many respects that when I was in the Congress I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act for example that made sure one person couldn't take a so-called marriage and move to another state and have that new state have to recognize and so forth.
So now we're in a position now that's unique. It's a judge-made problem. It's activists liberal judges. One in Massachusetts, one recently here in Iowa who have gotten up one day and decided someone elected them to make social policy for this country and overturn things that have been accepted for 200 years.
That's the heart of the problem. I have an amendment proposal that will fix the problem and it'll do two things: it'll prevent that one state moving from another and someone having to recognize it, but it will also say to judges - federal and state alike that may not impose this whether it be the federal or state constitution. It will also say that if you can't impose it over your own volition.
That state legislators have the option, they still have the option of doing what they want to do about the subject as representatives of the people. What I do there is fix the problem because no states have affirmatively approved gay marriage.
There's been no state legislature in the nation that has done that and not likely to. And secondly it allows me to adhere to my strongly held views ever since I've been in public life and before, for federalism that it's about freedom and diversity among our states, the federal government and the federal rules not impose a one-size fits all, even with regard to some of our deeply held beliefs.
Now I know that you could make a case saying the word marriage is different, but the proposed amendment as I read it would still allow same-sex couples to have all the benefits of marriage, but they wouldn't be able to call it a marriage.
So we're talking about what you call it. I think that you have to be very mindful of the precedence that you're setting, that if you can override state legislatures and override their will on one thing that is good, it would make it a whole lot easier on people who don't believe the way we do to override it on things that are bad. So I say let's do it as a practical matter.
The other approach has been tried in congress, but can't even get a majority for it when they've got a republican senate, as I recall, and you need 2/3. Let's fashion something that will cure the problem, that will stop the problems in its tracks while still saying if some state wants to come along through their legislature and do something different, let them answer to their own people, and I got feeling they won't be in the legislature that much longer.
Comments?
CBN IS HERE FOR YOU!
Are you seeking answers in life? Are you hurting?
Are you facing a difficult situation?
A caring friend will be there to pray with you in your time of need.
